Jump to content
Koen

We love photos

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

We've moved on as well; M7 BFIST, M1200, M707, M1131.  And I don't know what happened to the idea but in the early 2000s I remember playing on an Abrams FIST (AFIST) simulator, which was pretty impressive but apparently nobody else thought so.  

I've always felt pretty strongly that the FIST should roll in whatever the supported maneuver unit rolls in; during Desert Storm FISTVs single handedly held up entire divisions, and I'm not talking about enemy divisions.  And I'm pretty sure they sat out OIF, at least all the mech units in OIF 1 went forward with BFISTs, but as late as 2008 you could still find yourself in a FISTV stateside.

Steelbeasts has a rather simplified FO/ fire-support-model. But you can crew an FO vehicle and move with the combat units to call down fires...its fun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Grenny said:

Steelbeasts has a rather simplified FO/ fire-support-model. But you can crew an FO vehicle and move with the combat units to call down fires...its fun.

 

Where SB shines as it relates to fire support training is in the simple integration with maneuver, ie critical fire support tasks executed in real time in support of the close fight.  GuardFIST [retro!], Call for Fire Trainer [CFFT] etc are all great for practicing proper procedures inside a vacuum (ie on the hill) but as far as I'm concerned that's about the extent of their worth. 

As far as gaming goes, haven't touched for example, Combat Mission in a couple years now because imho SB is to CM, what CM is to company of heroes.  Even Command Ops 2 and similar top downs are just SB played only in map view mode, and the list goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Breakthrough7 said:

Where SB shines as it relates to fire support training is in the simple integration with maneuver, ie critical fire support tasks executed in real time in support of the close fight.

 

Agreed.

 

We use it to train BCs (Artillery Company commanders in US speak) in order to help them develop a Fire Plan to support the Manoeuvre Commander's Scheme of Manoeuvre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welding accident at the Israeli Armor School in 1995:

 

IzEWjdrdORo.jpg

 

No casualties.

Note the instructor chair on the Magach 7C's turret roof. These tanks served the TC course.

The 7C was later refurbished and sent for display in the Latrun Museum.

Also note the 6B's T142 tracks - at that time the Armor School 6Bs were the only active IDF tanks with T142, as the 6Bs of the 401st armored brigade were fitted with Merkava tracks for deployment to the northern theater. Reserve units kept the T142, however.

Edited by Iarmor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Breakthrough7 said:

Vehicle identification challenge #2:  What kind of tank am I standing on here?

 

Smart Alec option: One with a M Kill.

 

Simple Option: A T-72 variant.

 

More likely option: Asad Babil variant.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gibsonm  Sharp answer, You win round #2!  I wish I'd played around on this tank [and the BMPs] more and taken more/better pictures but Iraqi armor was just about the least interesting thing in the world to me at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Smart Alec option: One with a M Kill.

 

Simple Option: A T-72 variant.

 

More likely option: Asad Babil variant.

 

Khem khem. Assad Babil variant is kinda a myth. ;)

Iraq never produced T-72's on their own. Their tanks were either early T-72M, late T-72M or T-72M1, purchased in Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia. I guess if we would have theirserial numbers, and then dig in to archives, we could know where and when these tanks were made. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not kind of a myth, that is the distinction that iraqis used for morale purposes to make their tanks sound especially badass- it's not a myth as in they never did that. you might be having issues with a semantic distinction- do you mean to say that lion of babylon is not iraqi designed and produced from scratch? no one claims that it was as far as i know. over the years, iraq had either assembled t-72s from exported parts- in other words putting together disassembled exported parts rather than creating each part from scratch, or they took their already working t-72s and added components to them to the standards that suited them (extra welded plates, a primitive smoke generator, some kind of IR dazzler on some vehicles). so they didn't produce t-72s from scratch, but they did assemble export models or modify them, often times under embargo conditions putting together what they could. that's what it is meant by iraqi assad babil- they did in fact either locally assemble parts received from abroad, or they locally upgraded some vehicles in their fleet. but the name doesn't refer to a locally manufactured tank from scratch, it refers to the fact that they called them lion of babylon for the coolness factor, not because they designed and produced them under license from scratch.

 

Edited by Captain_Colossus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assad Babil might indeed be a local name for T-72, but otherwise, these tanks were made in former WarPact member states, Iraq never produced them, and there are serious doubts they even assembled some from knock-off kits. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course, but it's like you're doubling down on this for the wrong reason. in a similar way, the british in world war 2 nicknamed some of their american manufactured vehicles by certain designations, but the fact that they gave them these names

isn't meant to imply that the british actually produced these vehicles. in much the same way, lion of babylon or sherman 'firefly' are nicknames for morale purposes rather than to suggest something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the more questionable designation is the term 'monkey model' that was thrown around for awhile, as if to say that the soviets supplied the iraqis with scrap rather than the 'real' version of the t-72. that sort of designation needs clarification

or ought to be thrown out altogether, since the export models that the iraqis received aren't 'lemons' but rather export models without certain features, but at least as good as t-72a models used by warsaw pact.

 

monkey model - likely a description used to somehow imply the t-72's lackluster performance was due to the fact that iraq didn't receive 'real' t-72s

lion of babylon- local iraqi designation for the t-72, much the same way allies in world war 2 may have given their american manufactured vehicles their own names

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Memorial to the Defenders of the Sky of the Fatherland. Aircraft made in full size. Russia, Tula.
 

1496395772135617031.jpg

Edited by KosmosRT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Damian90  If the chain of custody of Iraq's old tanks ever becomes relevant to your writing/research; that tank was kept near the north gate of Camp Fallujah in 2006 [there was another nearly pristine batch lined up at the south gate], and someone must have had a plan for them that precluded being towed to the boneyard or gunnery range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read, most iraqi T-72s came from either Poland or Czechoslovakia, most likely Poland because since the Soviets were also supplying the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, they thought fit to encourage warsaw satellite states to supply equipment to both of these countries at war.

 

Regarding the Asad Babil, as I read, they were meant to be assembled in Iraq but the factory wasn't ready until at least 1989-1990, at a time when the situation in Europe was changing radically specially in the East. What is known is that during the Gulf War, the factory was bombed and destroyed. Chances are that Iraq didn't have enough time, resources and luck to start assembling them, but for political reasons, it was obviously a good idea to show the opposite despite all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Breakthrough7 said:

@Damian90  If the chain of custody of Iraq's old tanks ever becomes relevant to your writing/research; that tank was kept near the north gate of Camp Fallujah in 2006 [there was another nearly pristine batch lined up at the south gate], and someone must have had a plan for them that precluded being towed to the boneyard or gunnery range.

Thanks. ;)

8 hours ago, Captain_Colossus said:

what is the more questionable designation is the term 'monkey model' that was thrown around for awhile, as if to say that the soviets supplied the iraqis with scrap rather than the 'real' version of the t-72. that sort of designation needs clarification

or ought to be thrown out altogether, since the export models that the iraqis received aren't 'lemons' but rather export models without certain features, but at least as good as t-72a models used by warsaw pact.

 

monkey model - likely a description used to somehow imply the t-72's lackluster performance was due to the fact that iraq didn't receive 'real' t-72s

lion of babylon- local iraqi designation for the t-72, much the same way allies in world war 2 may have given their american manufactured vehicles their own names

There was never such thing as T-72 "Monkey Models".

Export T-72M or T-72M1 have exactly the same protection levels, firepower, mobility as Soviet T-72 or T-72A. There are minor difference in communication equipment, NBC protection etc. But in essence, a T-72M1 is exactly the same as T-72A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2018 at 3:21 AM, Assassin 7 said:

"overheating problem" LOL....

 

The Leo2 would be perfect, but every time I see one with a popped top or something I just wish that the hull ammo storage was a little bit different...

 

Also @SSnake 2A4M CAN please. *cough*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can someone pin that threat on? So it does not silde away when there are not many photos to be made?

 

I attached some from the shooting range...some future hard targets

Leopard_1_mod1.jpg

Edited by Grenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 10:39 PM, Grenny said:

Can someone pin that threat on? So it does not silde away when there are not many photos to be made?

 

 

Done.

Good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...